Senior chimes in

Steve Waugh, the man who Ricky Ponting succeeded as Australia's Test captain, has said Ponting made a mistake by using part-time bowlers instead of his main strikers on the fourth day in Nagpur. Ponting has been widely criticised for the choices he made after tea on Sunday, when a quick string of wickets could have given Australia a realistic chance of victory.

But Ponting was concerned about Australia's dismal over rate and rather than handing the ball to his fast men, he went for the part-time slow offerings of Michael Clarke, Cameron White and Michael Hussey, with the frontline spinner Jason Krejza at the other end. India built a sizeable lead and went on to win the match and the series.

"I am sure Ricky would regret the decision," Waugh told the Herald Sun. "Winning the Test match is what mattered. You have just spent six weeks in the subcontinent. You just don't take your foot off the gas."

After the match Ponting was fined because Australia were behind on their overs but they had hustled enough for him to avoid a possible suspension for the first Test against New Zealand next week. But Waugh had some sympathy for Ponting and said everyone involved in Test cricket needed to keep the game moving quickly.

"There are far too many stoppages," he said. "I remember when I played it was considered a badge of honour not to have a drink in a session [apart from the scheduled drinks break]. And no one died from dehydration. These days there are far too many drinks breaks. It's ridiculous. But it is just not the captain's fault. It is up to coaches, referees and umpires to keep the show moving."


http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/current/story/377774.html

The vultures are gathering.

When is one of these guys going to say the biggest mistake was getting in a position that he "had" to bowl part timers ...rather than bowling the part timers ?

sage,　MB.

Waugh told the Herald Sun. "Winning the Test match is what mattered. You have just spent six weeks in the subcontinent. You just don't take your foot off the gas."

Using the analogy about what if Karen Carpenter had eaten Momma Cass's chicken sandwich, if Waugh and Ponting had taken each other's approaches we'd probably now be celebrating 10 years of being undefeated in a series in Indian.

embee wrote:When is one of these guys going to say the biggest mistake was getting in a position that he "had" to bowl part timers ...rather than bowling the part timers ?

Over rates are poor across the board. Hard to single out Ponting for this, but what I don't understand is why he wouldn't turn to Katich, if he felt the over rates had to to be improved at all costs

embee wrote:When is one of these guys going to say the biggest mistake was getting in a position that he "had" to bowl part timers ...rather than bowling the part timers ?

Ian Chappell said that, but no one ever listens to him.

Henry wrote:

embee wrote:When is one of these guys going to say the biggest mistake was getting in a position that he "had" to bowl part timers ...rather than bowling the part timers ?

Ian Chappell said that, but no one ever listens to him.

With good reason, he is a qunt and that is what happens when you are one...qunt.

But Embee's point is what I thought all along.

I know he has little currency, but Neilson makes this entirely reasonable comment:

"It's all well and good to now say that he should have kept bowling the quicks at any cost but the question I ask is what sort of leadership is that as a captain of Australia? Is it all right to break the rules as long as you win without worrying about the consequences?"
Now I think that is difficult to argue against and if accepted, throws the blame onto the element of getting into that position where a remedy was required.

doctorspin wrote:

Henry wrote:

embee wrote:When is one of these guys going to say the biggest mistake was getting in a position that he "had" to bowl part timers ...rather than bowling the part timers ?

Ian Chappell said that, but no one ever listens to him.

With good reason, he is a qunt and that is what happens when you are one...qunt.

But Embee's point is what I thought all along.

I know he has little currency, but Neilson makes this entirely reasonable comment:

"It's all well and good to now say that he should have kept bowling the quicks at any cost but the question I ask is what sort of leadership is that as a captain of Australia? Is it all right to break the rules as long as you win without worrying about the consequences?"
Now I think that is difficult to argue against and if accepted, throws the blame onto the element of getting into that position where a remedy was required.

First, let's not forget that it is possible to get quicker bowlers to pick up the over rate. You just have to stop the faffing around between every delivery.

Now, if Ponting had said "mod it, I'm going to be suspended, guys try and bowl the overs a bit quicker, but let's get out there and win it," then come out at the press conference and said as much, then it would have shown he was aware of the consequences.

"Using the analogy about what if Karen Carpenter had eaten Momma Cass's chicken sandwich, if Waugh and Ponting had taken each other's approaches we'd probably now be celebrating 10 years of being undefeated in a series in Indian."



That's very wise.